When evaluating the existence or lack of existence of anything in conventional logic, you require positively correlating evidence, and operation through logical and scientific processes. There are many reasons why I would reject the logical assumption of God(s), or at least warrant a method of living for which I do not recognize the existence of God(s).
First, I would like to identify the premise that I advocate which reads "God cannot logically be defended as real." This premise in absolutely NO WAY means that I can defend God(s) not being real. I am making the assertion that the premise of the argument cannot be assumed true on the side of logic. I would however also like to identify the word "God(s)" in the premise. The use of the word identifies three things. The being is 1. SENTIENT, 2. THEISTIC (mono or poly) 3. OF A HIGHER POWER/FORCE.
The primary instance for which I identify the logic in assuming that a God is not real is due to where the burden of proof lies. The maker of a positive claim must support evidence to back up the claim that is made. It is absolutely absurd to make a claim and not support the claim made with any sort of evidence, yet use the lack of evidence AGAINST the claim as a vector of truth. I have yet to hear any actual evidence which would suggest a God to be real, to which I hold the assumption that it is illogical to assume a God as being real.
Many will assert that "God" is simply a title that can be shared by anything used to which creates the universe. If that is the identification of God that I accepted, I would believe in a God. The way I identified "God(s)" in the premise is as a (or a group of) SENTIENT THEISTIC HIGHER POWER meaning it is identified as a sentient omnipotent, onmibenevolent, omniscient being(s). I will only reject the premise of a logical backing behind the existence of (a) God(s) as defined in the original premise.
The assertion of a necessity of (a) God(s) being true is not a reason that the God(s) as shared by a conventional religion be true. Also, a "pros and cons" argument for religion in the context of whether one should or should not believe in a religion out of personal benefit is also a premise I will reject as "logical". Even if the benefits of a God being potentially real outweigh the cons of having potentially wasted your life in a belief are, in my opinion, not identified as logical since the personal reasonability of believing in God =/= any actual, sensical proof of God (I've given up on the whole (s) thing now sorry) being in existence.
Note; that I do accept the theory of evolution as true, as well as that of the Big Bang and many other scientific theories assumed to be false by SOME religious people, but I do not use those assertions as arguments why a God cannot be logically defended.

What real evidence can be supplied for God's existence? St. Thomas, in his Summa Theologica, sets forth five separate proofs for the existence of God, Unlike St. Anselm's proof, which deals with pure concepts, St. Thomas' proofs rely on the world of our experience-what we can see around us. In these proofs we can easily see the influence of Aristotle and his doctrine of the Four Causes.

l) The Proof from Motion. We observe motion all around us. Whatever is in motion now was at rest until moved by something else, and that by something else, and so on. But if there were an infinite series of movers, all waiting to be moved by something else, then actual motion could never have got started, and there would be no motion now. But there is motion now. So there must be a First Mover which is itself unmoved. This First Mover we call God.

2) The Proof from Efficient Cause. Everything in the world has its efficient cause--its maker--and that maker has its maker, and so on. The coffee table was made by the carpenter, the carpenter by his or her parents, and on and on. But if there were just an infinite series of such makers, the series could never have got started, and therefore be nothing now. But there is something everything there is! So there must have been a First Maker, that was not itself made, and that First Maker we call God.

3) The Proof from Necessary vs. Possible Being. Possible, or contingent, beings are those, such as cars and trees and you and I, whose existence is not necessary. For all such beings there is a time before they come to be when they are not yet, and a time after they cease to be when they are no more. If everything were merely possible, there would have been a time, long ago, when nothing had yet come to be. Nothing comes from nothing, so in that case there would be nothing now! But there is something now-the world and everything in it-so there must be at least one necessary being. This Necessary Being we call God.

4) The Proof from Degrees of Perfection. We all evaluate things and people in terms of their being more or less perfectly true, good, noble and so on. We have certain standards of how things and people should be. But we would have no such standards unless there were some being that is perfect in every way, something that is the truest, noblest, and best. That Most Perfect Being we call God.

5) The Proof from Design. As we look at the world around us, and ourselves, we see ample evidence of design--the bird's wing, designed for the purpose of flight; the human ear, designed for the purpose of hearing; the natural environment, designed to support life; and on and on. If there is design, there must be a designer. That Designer we call God.

Next, lets go to the actual arguments that "you" made, but first we should go back to the original premise that I made saying that my interpretation of God must be a sentient theistic higher power. I wouldn't reject the idea of a first cause being titled as God, regardless of the true status of our universe. I WOULD contest the logic behind the statement that God can be deemed as necessary.

Here is your first point: "The Proof from Motion. We observe motion all around us. Whatever is in motion now was at rest until moved by something else, and that by something else, and so on." The only thing I think I will be guilty of copying and pasting into this debate would be the definition of Entropy, "a thermodynamic quantity representing the unavailability of a system's thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work, often interpreted as the degree of disorder or randomness in the system." tying into the laws of thermodynamics which accounts for the irreversibility of natural processes. The open system for which live gives plants energy from the sun, then herbivores from eating the said plants, and finally carnivores from eating the herbivores who ate the plants who got their energy from the sun. This "movement" that you describe is due to the regulation of energy in our system which is provided by this relationship we have with the sun.

This is your next point: "The Proof from Efficient Cause. Everything in the world has its efficient cause--its maker--and that maker has its maker, and so on. The coffee table was made by the carpenter, the carpenter by his or her parents, and on and on." The word that the article you copied and pasted was looking for is "The law of the cause in effect states that every effect has a cause which was formed by another effect" then just for the memes "and in the beginning there was an uncaused cause which is given the title of God". I'm beginning to see a pattern of using "something had to come from somewhere" in your arguments. The logic that "something cant come from nothings" isn't necessarily a fallacy, but also isn't true. What IS a fallacy is the claim that God had to have done it due to a lack of explanation of a phenomenon. The fallacy "argument from incredulity" states that that the following is fallacious, "X is produced, X's production cannot be explained, X's production will never be explained, X's creation must be divine." The logic behind this sort of thinking is non sequitur in the sense that it makes the assumption that something without any given explanation is now NOT capable of being explained without any regard to future explanations or exceptions to the original premise.

Before I continue to the next point, there are many possible explanations that may shed light on creation from "nothing." One theory is that the state of "nothing" can be created by the collision of matter and antimatter. The collision would make sense due to the observation of there being an increase of 1 matter particle per billion antimatter pairs. The theory suggests that this imbalance is caused by the exertion of energy caused by an instant annihilation of matter-antimatter particle pairs. Also, in context to the argument made regarding "moving" without a first "mover", there is explainable movement causing an expansion to our universe due to a gravitational force exerted on matter caused by hardly-noticeable energy emitted by dark matter.

Your third point: "The Proof from Necessary vs. Possible Being" This statement states that there are beings that are not necessary like cars, trees, birds, us, and in order to balance that lack of necessity, there needs to be necessity in the universe. The first question to this which I would ask is "why" since there is no reason for an inherent purpose. The universe doesn't owe us any purpose, and there has yet to be a law stating "For every purpose there is an equal and opposite lack-of-purpose" since purpose isn't something like matter that needs antimatter or an action that gives an equal and opposite force in response. This is a composition fallacy in the sense that you apply the same requirements in scientific things to other things completely irrelevant to science. There is no reason why there needs to be a balance of necessity.

Your fourth point: "The Proof from Degrees of Perfection. We all evaluate things and people in terms of their being more or less perfectly true, good, noble and so on. We have certain standards of how things and people should be. But we would have no such standards unless there were some being that is perfect in every way" This argument says that in order to achieve a standard of perfection, we need to have something perfectly perfect to compare things to. Or, maybe that's totally not true. Morality in many instances can be objective in the sense that we recognize appreciation towards kind actions and life being preferable to non life (otherwise there would be no way to evaluate morality). However, in many instances, morality is subjective and identified by society. When we identify something as morally wrong, it isn't because we have a perfect view of the world, it is because we identify the way they act as something we would never do. The only reason we hold imperfect views of ourselves is either because of more perfect views of others, or views of ourselves that were more perfect than whatever action caused the belief of imperfection.

The other reason why your last claim is likely false is due to imperfections in our idea of perfection. Many view gay marriage as something imperfect due to what they view as immoral. I personally don't view gay marriage or homosexuality as immoral because I identify imperfection as external harm to another person, and I don't see the harm they do. I.E. I obtain morals that are different than yours, therefore perfection isn't a shared image (unlike a shared God would be)

Your final point: "The Proof from Design" states that the formations that are on Earth are so perfect it had to have been created by an intelligent being. This is also an argument from incredulity fallacy. You say that something so perfect must have been designed and avoid natural possibilities. Oddly enough, all of the examples you bring are those explained by evolution. A bird has a wing because it was naturally selected to do so and that is a trait which pulled through the rest of the ecosystem. There is no reason to credit a god.

Can love be scientifically explained? The logic you have states that if it cannot be measured in some way, shape, or form, it cannot exist. Albert Einstein once said that there is no religion with out science, and vice versa. The man who developed the Big Bang theory(not the show)? Catholic Priest. Gregor Mendel, father of genetics. Catholic monk. Copernicus, the man who developed the theory that the earth revolved around the sun. Catholic man. Ever hear of the miracle of Buenos Aries? Happened in the 1990s. After adoration, a priest went to put the Body of Christ in a cup of water then set it in a tabernacle. Usually, the host would dissolve in a couple days. However, when the priest checked the host seven days later, it had turned into a substance of blood and flesh. There were still white blood cells present, meaning that it was alive. It was DNA tested by a man who had no idea of where it came from. The result was that it had come from a middle aged Israeli man. The white blood cells had penetrated the tissue(it was from the heart) indicated it had undergone a severe beating. The tissue was still alive when it is being tested. It was the tissue of Jesus Christ, the Son of God(the God you don't believe in). There is no possible way for it to possibly be alive unless it was Jesus'.

I never stated that love and emotion are things that cannot be scientifically measured. What I DID say is that your comment on the necessity of a purpose in the universe doesn't require a balancing force as science does. If the chemical thought process that provides us with the idea of "purpose" is produced, that idea doesn't need to be balanced in another brain or by the presence of the opposite idea that you state.

You couldn't be committing more of a false equivalence fallacy when you tell me that there are so many scientists who were religious and all of these smart people. First of all, lets define the fallacy. You take the traits of two things and say that they are equal while ignoring all of their differences. EX: 1 is a number, 2 is a number, 1=2. What you did is you said that because a handful of scientists believed in a God, that somehow makes science religious or religion scientific. First of all, a lot of people will admit that they accept their religion based on faith which is defined as "A strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof." Many people don't argue that evidence is not a trait of religion, rather they use their faith.

Also, it is 100% wrong to assume that Albert Einstein believed in a personal God. He was a Pantheist whose quote you took immensely out of context.

As for the miracle of Buenos Aires(http://www.loamagazine.org...), there was no consensus on the study of the "growing blood and flesh of a human" out of a communion cracker and some water. According to the source I am reading (listed above) says that the study was confirmed to be blood and flesh by Frederic Zugiba, a Christian Apologist, and was not confirmed by ANY OTHER SCIENTISTS which I find quite odd. The only two other people who were witnesses of this test even happening have absolutely no credibility in a forensics field. One of them is a journalist and the other doesn't even have a specified career. There was no consensus among a group of actual scientists

I never said religion was scientific. Point being, you can be a man of God and a great mind in science at the same time. As a Catholic, I believe in the story of creation. But I also believe in evolution. The world was created in seven days by the one true God. "How can that be?" you may ask, "The Bible says nothing on dinosaurs." The reason I believe in both evolution and creation is simple. There was no 24 hour day limit when it occurred. Whatever God willed happened. Going back to the Buenos Aires miracle, you are wrong. First of all, I did not use that website. I used a more accurate Catholic oplaininne. I watched a video too. You are wrong about there being one scientist. There were a team of scientists. I'm sorry. I did a poor job of explaining it. This video does it better. One of the analyzers was atheist(you can relate to that), and then he converted(you can't relate to that).https://www.youtube.com...

I'm fully aware of the potential for great science and religion. That was never the issue.

This debate has devolved into this unbelievably watered down argument over a miracle. First of all, the "transferring" of this sample could have easily been manipulated. There is no way that we can actually PROVE that this event actually happened. These people who found, reported, and sampled the flesh could have easily switched out the host for actual heart flesh. This isn't something that Atheists can't explain, its something you can't prove. Maybe if this had been done in a lab, recorded, documented, and confirmed by an actual consensus, this would be more legitimate. The people who brought the sample to the Forensic Scientist could have easily just given him actual tissue from the heart of a human containing human DNA. There is no way you can prove they were truthful.

It was done in a lab. It was truthful. I think you need hearing aids or something because the video clearly said it was sent to NY for testing, were it began in a lab. Because something like this happened, your only hope was to assume some scientist fudged the data. Really?! Come on! Other than that, you have no argument whatsoever about this miracle. It clearly happened. It was tested. The public heard about it. If we were to go by your logic for scientific testing, everything in the history of testing would have to be redone. It would only be counted valid if someone of the opposite religion tested and confirmed it.

Since this is post round, i do still want to respond to your last claim. Yes, the final product of the tissue was tested in a lab, but the evidence could easily be fudged. We are relying on the honesty of only a small group of people to not have fudged the product given. It isn't a "miracle" and it can't be proven.

You clearly have no idea what the big bang theory is and therefor have no business trying to discuss it. You cannot refute what you do not understand and judging by your last post on what you think the big bang was caused by, shows that your intelligence on the matter is that of a non-sentient turd-waffle.

Scripture is no more of an evidence for the existence of god than a comic book is evidence for Spiderman.

Reasons for voting decision: Con Did not cite his sources when they were used initially and used direct text from the source. Had he put the information on the page into his own words he would have stayed tied with pro. This goes for both conduct (Using direct text without sourcing) and Sources

Reasons for voting decision: Con did not cite his sources as to where he borrowed his initial information from. This hurt his argument because Pro isn't debating against Con but aginst the web site information came from. Con should have presented his own words and thoughts in acordance with his research.

You are not eligible to vote on this debate

This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.